'Fiddy-Cal' Becomes Weapon of Choice in Iraq

[1911Tuner]

Gruntspeak

Ma Deuce, she do command respect wherever she go...yessir!

I say give the boys all the M2s and ammo they want, and mama will bring'em home soon.

 

[Burt Blade]

The "experts of war" speak of higher ammunition counts from lighter guns and bullets.

Warriors who kill the enemy reach for the biggest gun they can manage.

A century and a half ago, the Infantry killing stick was a _fifty-eight_ caliber bolt of lightning. A single shot weapon, a spear point for it, and less than 100 rounds of ammunition for it was all the Infantry was issued. That gun was intended to reliably _kill_ an enemy at hundreds of yards. The business of war is killing the other guys until the fighting stops. We knew it then.

Now we send our Heroes forth with guns few self respecting hunters would use on game larger than raccoons, loaded with bullets that seldom kill woodchucks quickly. The once-ordinary and once-manageable recoil of the .58 caliber Springfield Rifled Musket and the .30 caliber M-1 Garand and the 7.62mm M-14 are now too punishing for troops that are on average much bigger and in far better physical condition than those who carried bigger guns to victory.

And now our Heroes have seen the Elephant, and turn to the killing power their leaders disdained, for once again, the leaders spoke of things other than killing the enemy, the true business for the butchery we call war. “If you would have Peace, prepare for War.” Prepare for _war_, and remember that war involves killing the most dangerous animal on the planet.

 

[nfl1990]

You now I always wondered why in WWII a .30-06 round was ok, but now a .308 is much recoil, it like the higher ups are sugesting the troops are wimps, which I definatly don't think is true.

 

[50 Shooter]

You're forgetting something, the dead don't go anywhere. The wounded tie up at least one or more other soldiers to get them off the battlefield. That means that there's that many less enemy that you have to fight.

 

[Buzztail]

God bless John Moses Browning.

+1

It's ironic how some have thought that we are so much smarter now than then and here we are scrambling for .50 cals, scrambling for M-14's and .45's. When it comes to killing and survival, it doesn't pay to bean count, but who am I to say, I'm just a lowly uneducated American.

+1 on that too

Remember wounded men can shoot back! Those hit with a fifty tend to stay hit, those next to them tend to bug out!

 

[MechAg94]

You're forgetting something, the dead don't go anywhere. The wounded tie up at least one or more other soldiers to get them off the battlefield. That means that there's that many less enemy that you have to fight.

Does that philosophy apply the same way when you are fighting terrorists and/or suicide types?

 

[crashresidue]

OK, J.T.T - which Cav, what year, what area?

We "horse traded" and got two pod mounted .50's and mounted them on the "snake" I was flying. I took her out for a test firing - she was AWSUME! She also vibrated the instruments so badly that you couldn't read them and you couldn't see through the rocket sight.

I took her back to Quan Loi, we took 'em off and decided NEVER to do that again!

God only knows what that 20 mm chain gun shook like that they went with later on in the war!

BTW - according to the Geneva Convention - the .50 BMG is illegal to use as an "anti-personel" weapon. OK, "I was just trying to shoot the rifle out of his hands." Works for me!!!

We also had "gun-trucks" in Nam - quad .50's on the duces. Ever see a "Duster" (40 mm pom-pom's) work out at night?

I flew the night the bad guys came down off Nui Ba Din and took the one (Duster) away from the ARVNs - three Huey fire-teams and God only knows how many F-4's flew that night trying to take that d*mned thing back! We finally did, when an ARVN "gun-truck" snuck up behind it, while it was "eating our shorts" - and blew them away.

Being "new" is not always better - getting the job do is!

Gentle winds,
cr
AKA: Blue Max 68-P2
(note to self - don't play on the computer this late at night.)

 

[Crosshair]

If the people you are fighting are willing to die for their cause and/or do not care about the wounded, the "wounding theory" gets to be a very big disadvantage because now WE have to take care of their medical care when we overrun their position ad have to worry about them throwing a gernade at us. The "wounding theory is questionable at best. Also, the 50 BMG is not banned by any convention. The Geneva Convention is for POWs and nothing more

 

[James T Thomas]

can't forget anything

"50 Shooter:" I havn't forgotten! During the heat of battle, and I mean the direct, killing exchange of gunfire, the wounded have to be temporarily ignored and the able continue to fight for life. Believe me. You love those guys and will risk youself to save them, but when you are engaged in keeping your own, this realization comes to you: If you take out the enemy who has you and your friend in his sights at the time, you will have a much better chance of -then rescuing him. And besides, the brave medics will risk all to reach that man. Your job is to kill the enemy. It is a betrayal of the sacred blood of our fighting men to arm them with a wounding weapon and expect them to take the battle to the enemy while disreguarding their own lives for the sake of some theory of outcome. Believe me, when you are under the sights of a ruthless enemy, and are armed with such a weapon, you will give "your kingdom for a 'horse.' "

The Russian army and later the German army, after they began to loose most of their battles and became hard pressed, simply had to abandon their wounded, and did so with cold efficiency and command. The misconception of tying up admistrative personnel, that is the 10:1 support troops, to exhaust the enemy capacity may be long term effective, but before that ever occurs the decisiveness of the battlefield victories will determine the victor.

"Burt Blade" was correct about warriors reaching for the biggest gun.
I would have gladly exchanged my plastic, aluminum varmit gun for the M14 I trained with initially, and the men I was responsible for also would have.


I'm writing this just in hope that somehow I may influence some to recognize this "trend in American History" as stated by "MTMilitaman." (Thanks for the book reference and Christie information.)

"amprecon:" We placed those scorpions in ammo boxes with tarantulas and snakes we had captured, and because of their hard shells, they were able to kill both while remaining unharmed. We had passed through bamboo thickets where "fire ants" had thier colonies in the hollow stems. They leaped out on us, down our backs, and would hook our skin with ice tong like pinchers and then begin to spin around! Wow, with the best military silence discipline, we were unable to keep silent. They were suicidal; would stick their heads right into the flame of a lit match when it came near!

Yes!.."crosshair"

 

[James T Thomas]

my unit, my men

"crashresidue:" Company D, 2/7, First Air Cavalry in 1968-69.
Came in country in the Ist Corps; Quang Tri, and saw the whole Division in the air at one time when we moved to Quan Loi. Spectacular. Fought in one "red" landing zone after another, until I was of the mind set that my fate was sealed.

3 Dec '68 company D was anihilated, myself and only a few others remained alive. Ironic that we had a similar designation to Gen. Custer's cav.

"Gary Owen"

 

[BluesBear]

JamesT.T., Well said sir.

We salute you.

 

[NickEllis]

anybody know how much it costs to produce a round of .50?

 

[DevLcL]

This may be a little off-topic, regarding the military use of older weapons as opposed to newer ones. I've shot both the M4 Carbine/M16 and the M-14/M1A/M1 SOCOM. It seems to me that I'd rather have a weapon in the M1 category rather then an M16, bigger bullets, more accurate, and light weight enough if you get the squad version as opposed to a hunting or marksman versions. I guess its all a matter of preferance? The M-16 is cheaper to build and shoot? Why do we even use the M16? It's a great rifle but it seems to me theres some other that might be better, especially with new-age modifications.

-Dev

 

[MTMilitiaman]

You're forgetting something, the dead don't go anywhere. The wounded tie up at least one or more other soldiers to get them off the battlefield. That means that there's that many less enemy that you have to fight.

Yeah...too bad it is our guys it takes to get them off the battlefield and our logitics that it takes to care for their wounds. The wounding theory is BS. My brother was taught to double tap every single BG on the ground in the head prior to passing them to make sure they were a) dead enough not to pull the pin on a grenade or pull off a long burst of automatic gunfire and b) dead enough not to care if we decided to spare the expense of complying with Geneva regulations considering treatment of prisoneers. Apparently, once you advance past them, they are considered prisoneers and you have to care for them. There goes your wounding theory...

 

[p35]

Commercial .50 starts at $1.00-$2.00 a round and goes up from there. No idea what the government pays for the stuff. I've heard that the more exotic rounds like the one that Canadian sniper used to make a kill at 2500 meters runs over $50.00 a round.

 

[eab]

Yeah...too bad it is our guys it takes to get them off the battlefield and our logitics that it takes to care for their wounds. The wounding theory is BS. My brother was taught to double tap every single BG on the ground in the head prior to passing them to make sure they were a) dead enough not to pull the pin on a grenade or pull off a long burst of automatic gunfire and b) dead enough not to care if we decided to spare the expense of complying with Geneva regulations considering treatment of prisoneers. Apparently, once you advance past them, they are considered prisoneers and you have to care for them. There goes your wounding theory...

The "Wounding" theory that he is revering to is if the enamy cary off there dead with them. This is a very old theroy dating back to the civil war when they used tri-bladed bayonets instead of just a tradional blade. Supsoidly the slash wound of the tri-blade does not heal very easy.

And I am pretty sure shooting the "dead" again is not a new thing it was probaly done durning WWII when they used "real" guns and such.

 

[UnintendedConsequences]

One good shot better than 10 bad ones

I would think that one good shot that takes an enemy out of action would be better than 10 bad ones that only wound him, especially with suicidal fighters.

As I understand it, they have no qualms about playin' 'possum just long enough to whack us when we try to triage and save the wounded. If this is their prefered tactic, it would seem to be better in the thick of it to make sure the hole you put in the enemy makes him leak like a burst radiator hose rather than a pin prick.

However, I've never served in the military and I have no experience. Perhaps I have no place in this discussion. I will say, however, than a M-1 Garand is controlable even in rapid fire once you get used to it. I don't notice the felt recoil any more and I train for one shot kills when I hunt. I know that hunting is different than combat. However, I would point out that it would be better to train the soldiers and marines to be good marksmen rather than train them to depend on volume firepower. But we are talking about our fighting force being equiped with varmint caliber carbines rather than battle rifles.

If it takes World War II and Korean War era firearms to do the job, so be it. Just because it's old and it works doesn't mean its obsolete.

 

[Balog]

The hajjis we've shot up so far try to carry off their dead and wounded. Maybe because they care for them, maybe to keep them out of our hands. Who knows?

Re wounding: Our docs have done a fine job fixing up wounded BG's. But if they're dead you don't have to do any paperwork. Just an observation.

JTT: thank you sir.

 

[BluesBear]

War is Hell. Or at least it's supposed to be.

Since when did War become so compassionate?

It's war by its very nature the opposite of compassion?

Throughout history there have been inventions that were considered, at the time, to be so horrific that the mear suggestion of it's use would prevent Wars from getting started.

Then along came some bleeding hearts and they decided that War should be reformed into something only slightly less humane than professional sports.

The problem is the people who are deciding how humane War shall be are never the ones sticking their necks out.
Ask the men and women in the front line how compassionate they really feel.
Tell them that if their high quality personal defense device malfunctions that it's extremely inhumane to beat the life out of their enemy with a rock.

Send the politicos out into harms way armed only with a copy of the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Accords and see how fast they start gathering rocks.

Warfare isn't supposed to be fair. If we had fought "fair" would we have won the American Revolution? Our policy was to shoot the shiznet out of the bozos in the red frocks before they could get into a position to shoot us.

Now I want you to remember that no bas***d ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bas***d die for his country. (General George S. Patton Jr. - June, 1944)



Now, as I understand it, and I may very well be misinformed, but isn't the reason our rivals in the sandbox drag off their dead and wounded is for religious beliefs that the body must be presented properly in order to enter Virginville? Not in an attempt to save their life because earthy life is no big deal to them.
That's why they were so pissed off when they thought some of their dead had been left to lay facing the wrong direction.
In my opinion if your enemy is dead there is no wrong position. To me DRT IS the optimum position.

 

[crashresidue]

Greetings,

"Neither the parties to the conflict nor members of their armed forces have an unlimited rights to choose methods and means of warfare. It is forbidden to use weapons or methods of warfare that are likely to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering."

There have been four Geneva conventions - only the 1949 Convention delt with POW's.

The quote above is from the Convention dealing with "wounded" - 1863, Geneva Switzerland.

The Article that bans .50 BMG's also bans "dum-dum" bullets- that's why we use "military ball" ammo, or as now known as the "FMJ" - full metal jacket.

Or, I just may be wrong and it's listed in the Hague (sp?) Agreements.

What I remember most is sitting in the dirt at Fort Polk and listening to my DI tell me that I couldn't use a .50 against people, and then he told us that if we needed to, then we better d*mned well use it because "dead men don't care anymore".

First Team!

Gentle winds,
cr